It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How Much Do We Really Know

page: 6
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

This is where you should know there's nothing to debate because that's exactly how science work and quite frankly science and religion walk parallel to each other with the only separation being the debate about God and creation




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

This is where you should know there's nothing to debate because that's exactly how science work and quite frankly science and religion walk parallel to each other with the only separation being the debate about God and creation



If that was true, science would make no progress if every new idea was rejected we'd still be living in caves
You do not know how science works at all... you have formed an idea based on lies
so shut up and put another log on the fire, I think I heard a hungry leopard



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Lets not get into a debate about the arc and no I'm not a super religious person i haven't even picked up a bible since i was like 11 because the stories are watered down and rewritten to give us a half truth about past events. But to at least touch on your question you must first ask yourself how did an elderly man build something of that magnitude at that time. Lets not talk about biblical things, we'll both get a headache before we get answers trust me I've tied



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

Lets not get into a debate about the arc and no I'm not a super religious person i haven't even picked up a bible since i was like 11 because the stories are watered down and rewritten to give us a half truth about past events. But to at least touch on your question you must first ask yourself how did an elderly man build something of that magnitude at that time. Lets not talk about biblical things, we'll both get a headache before we get answers trust me I've tied

you're not religious
but you believe there was a great flood
uh ok then



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk


Ok what does science say about quantum entanglement or astral projection even parallel universes. Like i said if it has tangible proof it's accepted by science if not it's discarded deep down you know I'm right



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Every human being has at least 1 thing that they believe that has yet to be proven as fact including you. I'm not asking what it is but you do believe in something that most say isn't real.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk


Ok what does science say about quantum entanglement or astral projection even parallel universes. Like i said if it has tangible proof it's accepted by science if not it's discarded deep down you know I'm right

In 1935 a paper by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen said quantum entanglement was impossible
In 1964, a paper by John Stewart Bell proved it was real and proved both predictions and that his Theory was scientifically testable. Science now accepts it as valid

This on its own proves you don't know how science works, science builds upon itself
Religion only allows belief based on untestable faith, it is the complete opposite

Your approach is religious, not scientific

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

Every human being has at least 1 thing that they believe that has yet to be proven as fact including you. I'm not asking what it is but you do believe in something that most say isn't real.


No, that's just you. I do not subscribe to unprovable hypotheses. I used to, but I grew up

edit on 29-6-2015 by Marduk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Not sure if this has been posted in this thread but I just came across it and found it quit interesting



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Peter vlar

True but it was never said that the flood took cities to the bottom of the ocean. Water levels rose beyond imagination then receded over time.


Aside from the absolute truth of there not having been enough water even if all of the ice caps et al were melted, to cover even a portion of mountains there are other very tricky factors to take into consideration. How high do YOU believe the waters rose if they did not cover all mountains worldwide beyond their peaks as you state in your reply to Marduk? How far up across the entire globe did waters actually rise in your hypothetical scenario? How do you accommodate for the mixing of salt and fresh waters worldwide and the effects that salinity would have had on all bodies of fresh water? How long did it take for said waters to recede? Do you know what the effects of this standing water of unknown depth and salinity would have on the soil and what the recovery period would be before plant life would be able to take hold once again? What would humans, animals etc... survive on for potable water and what would all herbivores sustain themselves on until the soil was able to bear life again? have you factored any of the above into your scenario and if so what are your answers to the above?



I've been trying to talk to scientists and others i know to get them to at least think about testing mountain rocks at high levels to support my claim but they just laugh it away


Precisely what testing would you like to see done? what elevations and where would samples be taken? What is the cost to recover samples as well as the expense of testing? What is the factual basis behind this that would incentivize a geologist to undertake such a massive study? You do realize that you can't just say "I think that this is a good idea to rule out a potential hypothesis so could you go and test X# of samples from X# of locations at X Elevation?" and get people to just jump aboard with unbridled enthusiasm right? There needs to be some sort of factual basis for someone to take that leap of faith here. What is the supporting evidence you have compiled that is compelling enough to undertake something of this magnitude? I'm not trying to be a dick, I'm just being pragmatic in that you have offered nothing compelling whatsoever that would make anyone drop the workload they currently have and spend an obscene amount of money to test a pet project based on speculation and bronze age fairy tales. It simply isn't realistic and it certainly doesn't invalidate any science because you haven't brought forth enough compelling data to convince someone to do your due diligence for you. Especially when you haven't even covered the basic legwork.

If it means that much to you I suggest getting a degree in geology and using this as the basis for your masters thesis and then initiate a kickstarter campaign to fund it. Hell...put a religious bent on it and you can get tons of funding from the evangelical and fundamentalist crowd if they think you're trying to prove Noah's ark or something.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
a reply to: Marduk

This is where you should know there's nothing to debate because that's exactly how science work and quite frankly science and religion walk parallel to each other with the only separation being the debate about God and creation



Complete B.S. through and through. If that were the case we wouldn't have persisted in decoding the Neanderthal genome which ended up supporting a lot of work and research into Neanderthals and specifically the cohabitation and viability of fertile offspring/hybrids from HSS and HN procreation. Work that was laughed at and frowned upon by a large portion of Anthropology in the mid to late 90's only to be vindicated recently. Thisis exactly where religion and science are far removed from one another... religion just says 'this is how it is, no we can't prove it, you just need to have faith' whereas science says 'hey, this is what we think is possible but we currently don't have enough evidence to prove it. If the evidence doesn't turn out to substantiate this then we may be wrong, if the data vindicates us then great, even better because then we have new directions to look in'. This is how we now know about Homo Altaiensis( Denisovans) as well as another as yet unidentified west African hominid closely related to HSS, HN and HA that we have yet to find any actual physical remains of but the genetic data we now have from decoding the entire human and Neanderthal genomes as well as large portions of HA all indicate that there is another cousin out there that we have yet to discover physical proof of. Science does not just throw away things and toss them in the hoax bin. It does however require proof, verifiable data, testable evidence before it adds to or alters any given paradigm. Religion on the other hand never changes despite what the evidence may show.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Marduk

Well if this is true then it means you have no imagine and no scientific mind because the foundation of science was built on proving the impossible is possible. That's how we've come so far scientifically because the real scientists believe in what they can't yet prove. That's why i previously said when you stop asking questions you stop searching for answers.
When i said that i wasn't referring all scientists just the ones who put their minds in a box of already known facts



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Again i will say it, both religion and science are built on the same foundation that the impossible is possible if you believe it is. The only areas the two disagree on like i said is the existence of God and the creation of man.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: rebellion7

Saying it again doesn't make it true but if it makes you feel better say it a third time. Science is based on demonstrating evidence to show the truth. Not on the premise that the impossible is possible if you believe hard enough. There are many things that have been postulated that once scrutinized and found lacking were put in the trash heap where they belonged. That's nothing remotely similar to how religion works. The end goal of religion is control of the masses. Science on the other hand only strives to know the truth. If it worked the way you seem to think it does then we would not have such rigorous standards and the scientific method woe not be used. Sure, some hypothesis begin with utilizing the imagination but critical thinking takes just as much precedence, if not more, than the creativity.

Since you're so into making the impossible possible, why not address my other reply to you dealing with the mountain of improbabilities surrounding your insistence on a worldwide flood. Can you address the issues or would you prefer to ignore the rather pertinent issues? Im genuinely curious as to your thoughts on the issues and what your potential resolution would be.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

I'm on ATS because i love to debate and can accept when I'm wrong. To answer your questions tho realistically i believe the waters rose maybe 90 meters so a little over 300 feet. The salinity would have been substantially lower than it is today and i myself know of about 10 forms of plant life that thrive in flood like conditions. You may be under the impression that the flood lasted longer than it did which was less than a year about 9 months. I'm no geologist so i don't know what test they could run. But i had facts even if they aren't proven facts



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: rebellion7
But i had facts even if they aren't proven facts

Then they aren't facts at all, but merely conjecture.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Peter vlar

You guys and your boxed in minds can't accept a new idea. Before you even begin any scientific work you have to first have an idea "believe in something" so that you can prove it to be true. Scientist don't pick up ice cubes and study them to prove they melt because its known already therefore there has to be an unknown " something no one believes to be true" to study and prove its existence


edit on 03/29/2015 by rebellion7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:08 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

Is there not enough water in the Earth's bedrock, crust, and amid soils below that if purged would flood almost all land above current sea levels? Could not have those waters resided above their curent positions? Possibly even been generated from some upwelling source or some other origin, possibly other than Earth? I don't know or claim to know, but it could be possible. How much time passed in order for those waters to penetrate the crust? I have no clue, but I imagine a very, very long time. If such an event happened worldwide as myths, fables, and cultures tell, then I propose they time between the event and our current world is a far wider era or age than we think. Or, something extra supernatural occurred (the flood) AND something equally supernatural, yet opposite, occurred much fsster than we could possibly imagine. Either way, I am not supporting either as scientific claims. I do believe something happened on the scale of a mass extinction and water/flooding was involved as an affecting factor. I do believe the flood or a series of massive floods happened. Time will retell, but the real question is just how much time or how little time it took. The passage of time for which events happen is what is most cloudy, unsolved. Not a coincidence, science and religion are separated in most part by differences in perceived passage of time. Once we solve time, we will be able to weave the tapestry of our past, and possibly our future, as we perceive them. Or we will not see them separately ever again.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: admirethedistance

So when someone that's not a scientist speaks on the unknown its conjecture but for a scientist it's a theory. My facts can't be proven but they can't yet be discredited because there isn't enough information to discredit them



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: rebellion7

But there is information that discredits them. Geologists have taken core samples from all over the world, and there is no evidence of any 90 meter rise in global sea levels, lasting for 9 months.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Boscov
That was an eloquently worded response and yes something did happen, we may never know what but if we keep pushing forward and asking questions eventually there'll be a breakthrough there always is



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join